linuxppc-dev.lists.ozlabs.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: behanw@converseincode.com, ying.huang@intel.com,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, oleg@redhat.com,
	Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
	mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: llist code relies on undefined behaviour, upsets llvm/clang
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 22:42:29 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170116224229.17d1f6fc@kryten> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170116090540.GE3159@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>

Hi Peter,

> Last I checked I couldn't build a x86_64 kernel with llvm. So no, not
> something I've ever ran into.
> 
> Also, I would argue that this is broken in llvm, the kernel very much
> relies on things like this all over the place. Sure, we're way outside
> of what the C language spec says, but who bloody cares ;-)

True, but is there anything preventing gcc from implementing this
optimisation in the future? If we are relying on undefined behaviour we
should have a -fno-strict-* option to cover it.

> If llvm wants to compile the kernel, it needs to learn the C dialect
> the kernel uses.

LLVM has done that before (eg adding -fno-strict-overflow). I don't
think that option covers this case however.

Anton

  reply	other threads:[~2017-01-16 11:42 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-01-15 21:36 llist code relies on undefined behaviour, upsets llvm/clang Anton Blanchard
2017-01-16  9:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-01-16 11:42   ` Anton Blanchard [this message]
2017-01-16 12:53     ` Peter Zijlstra
2017-01-16 13:09       ` Andrey Ryabinin
2017-01-16 14:34 ` David Laight
2017-01-16 16:25   ` Peter Zijlstra

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20170116224229.17d1f6fc@kryten \
    --to=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=behanw@converseincode.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=oleg@redhat.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
    --cc=ying.huang@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).